tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 17 13:31:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: subject-object combos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:33:20 -0700
>From: Dave Yeung <[email protected]>
>>We have elected me as president.
>>Where we represents "the wacky folks club", and me represents "Floyd
>>Ernest" Much better to recast it and make either the group (we) or the
>>individual (me) or both an explicit third person. We have elected Floyd
>>Ernest as president -OR- The Wacky Folks Club has elected me as president.
>But suppose you can't? I know you can recast a lot of things, but it
>seems odd to me that such combinations are to my knowledge IMPOSSIBLE.
>Some things translate clunkily, but considering that Klingon has such an
>advanced verb prefix system, I don't see why it can't easily express such
>combinations.
If you can't, then your situation is really strange. I mean, in *English*
"we elected me as president" sounds terrible. Nobody would phrase it that
way. When you're talking about "me" then usually you're not talking about
"we." "Me" is the singular speaker to the exclusion of all others. "We"
is a group of speakers considered together, or a singular speaker on behalf
of a group. Since the speaker is saying "me" as well, we must be dealing
with a person speaking on behalf of a group. So if he's speaking on behalf
of a group, why's he speaking of himself?
>Consider some examples:
>We chose me as leader (my rendition of "we elected me president")
>DevwI'vaD jIH wIwIv (???)
Dunno about "-vaD" here. But what about "DevwI'ma' jIH 'e' wIwIv." That
skirts the problem of -vaD as well and is much cleaner.
>I might use this in a speech after an election victory. Changing to
>third person makes no sense. I suppose one might say {DevwI'vaD tuwIv}
>"You (pl) chose as leader" but it's just not as personal.
Also depends on whom you're addressing.
>Did you (all) see you?
>SoH bolegh'a'? (???)
>I might use the above if I were a judge, and I was questioning a bunch of
>witnesses, and I wanted to ask if anyone saw a particular suspect. Thus,
>the question is directed at BOTH the individual AND the group. I might
>say to the person {nIlegh'a'?} "Did they see you?" and to the group
>{bolegh'a'?} "Did you see him/her?" but I wanted a quicker more efficient
>way to say it. (If I were a Klingon judge who was pissed off... :) )
This is also a truly twisted example. The *ONLY* way it could work in
English is by pointing with fingers. Unless someone is saying "Did you
(pointing to the group) see you (pointing to the suspect)?" the sentence is
meaningless.
Moreover, there's no sense in asking it that way. If I'm asking if the
group saw the suspect, why am I addressing the suspect at all? I'm asking
the GROUP. I ask them "Did you see this suspect/him/her?" Just because
the person is present at the interrogation doesn't make him the addressee
of all questions.
>I took us to the store.
>"mechDaq" maH vItlhej (???)
>Let's say I'm a father and I came home with my kids, and my wife asks me,
>"So, where were you (all)?" I might answer {"mechDaq" chaH vItlhej} "I
>took them to the store", but since the question is directed at "you
>(all)", I think that I would answer with "we, us", IF that is possible.
Also a stilted construction. I took them to the store. I did the taking,
they came along. In a sense, I took myself too, but isn't that implied?
What do you gain aside from a bizarre construction?
>Do you represent you (all)?
>tlhIH Da'oS'a'? (???)
>I might say this if I meet a new species, and one steps forward to talk
>to me. Or I might say, {DevwI' SoH'a'} "Are you the leader?" Well, I
>can't think of a better example at the moment.
Same answer as above with the courtroom. If I'm addressing the one that
looks like the leader, I want to know if YOU represent THEM.
>So my question remains: It is POSSIBLE to express {we-me}, {you(pl)-you},
>{I-us}, {you-you(pl)} in Klingon?
Not that I know of, not directly anyway. And I don't miss it at all. All
your examples are more or less grammatical English... but I bet you'd find
some schoolmarms and grammar nitpickers out there who'd say you were
wrong. None of them sounds at all normal. The closest MIGHT be the one
about "taking us."
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMe1NfcppGeTJXWZ9AQEGbwL/T6X1pl8H6W7TRoK+ao/1SMjKe/hIeWbB
2s8j0lox8fXoKPTWuoKWiL2A0ScORWoCE298o6PxbY7HGUk5JjHM7hMv5Lbi4a95
dT6VNBEN9zWTTttNF28rk+kgOhJuyzDn
=Jw+U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----